August 21, 2010

"For some it would be the ultimate expression of the freedom of religion we enjoy in America; for others, a searing reminder of terrible deaths at the hands of murderers calling themselves Muslims. I suspect that the terrorists might celebrate its presence as a twisted victory over our society's freedoms. Rauf and his congregation are certainly free to locate their mosque near Ground Zero. But I hope and pray that they will show uncommon courtesy and decide not to."

169 comments:

"For some it would be the ultimate expression of the freedom of religion we enjoy in America..."

I speculate that that minority group includes principally only two types of people: (1) some Muslims and (2) people who really don't give a damn about religion or its free practice except as political issues.

"I recognize that I am asking the imam and his congregation to show a respect that has not always been accorded to them. "

Oh please. I understand what Karen is doing with this statement, but it's the wrong tack. Fueling the myth of Muslim oppression here in the U.S. only emboldens the grievance mongers, including the ones who make their points through murder.

Anyway, if any of these frauds really wanted to "build bridges", they'd start at home. Go explain to Muslims that they have to tolerate other Religions, and then build a nice Christian/Jewish community center in Saudi Arabia to emphasize the point.

Anyway, per the online grapevine (a post/link at AoS HQ), we may get some audio proof of the imams true motives/beliefs early next week. All the folks who have been lining up to call Rauf a moderate may want to walk that back a little after he calls for the destruction of Israel. We'll see.

In the mind of a Muslim the concept of withdrawing themselves from their bitter despisal of all Crusaders and Jews to create a real peace with us infidels does not exist. Karen is skillfully expressing the Bush Doctrine that tells us that Muslims are a peace loving people. That is a dangerous delusion.

We didn't let Hitler build monuments in Washington, DC after he declared war on us.

We didn't let the Japanese erect torii dogs or shinto temples in Los Angeles after Dec 7, 1941.

We didn't allow the Confederacy to erect statues in Boston.

We didn't willingly allow the British to establish customs houses in the Colonies after 1775.

Why are we allowing our enemies to erect this propaganda monument anywhere in our country, let alone a few blocks from the former world trade center?

We don't allow the first amendment to protect those that conduct human sacrifice. The first amendment is not a suicide compact. We are at war with middle easter fanatical muslims. It's high time we acted like it.

With the rarest of exceptions all our elites bury their heads in the sand on this issue. A head buried in the sand is better than a head chopped off must be their thinking. Stop being nice to the murderous muzzies, you feckless fools!

Hughes is rather tentative on certain key points, i.e., "I suspect that the terrorists might celebrate its presence as a twisted victory over our society's freedoms."

Rewrite: "Of course, the terrorists and the 25 percent or so of Muslims who support Bin Laden would celebrate it as a victory monument at the site of the greatest blow they have struck against the Great Satan."

All in all though, if even someone as squishy as Hughes opposes the ground zero mosque, hopefully that will help persuade mosque enthusiasts like Bob Wright.

Anyone want to bet that if this monstrosity is ever built it will have a different name in Arabic than in English? Kind of like all the books/speeches from Muslims are altered/deliberately mis-translated for Western audiences.We'll be calling it a "community center" while the Muslim world calls it the Mohammed Atta Victory Mosque.

I had the exact same reaction as Lincolntf had when I read Karen's conciliatory sentence

'I recognize that I am asking the imam and his congregation to show a respect that has not always been accorded to them.'

I feel that we here in the United States have shown citizen Muslims extreme courtesy and recognition that they should not be regarded with hostility because the hijackers committed their act of terrorism in the name of Allah. I resent that Karen softened her objection to the building of the mosque in the shadow of the world trade center by hinting we are unfair to Muslims. NO, we are NOT.

Mosab Hassan Yousef (the "Son of Hamas" author) raised the question of what would happen if someone smeared garbage on the mosque at Ground Zero. He quotes a passage from the Qur'an dealing with building a mosque somewhere for the purpose of mischief, which he thinks this would be.

What this means is that Bush is not going to bail out Obama on the ground zero mosque issue (no matter how much Maureen Dowd begs him to. (She would not have made this statement without clearing it with her former boss.) Tim W.

Tim Wright said... What this means is that Bush is not going to bail out Obama on the ground zero mosque issue (no matter how much Maureen Dowd begs him to. (She would not have made this statement without clearing it with her former boss.) Tim W.

8/21/10 9:43 AM

Bush has been exceedingly gracious to Obama in not attacking him, despite being repeatedly attacked by Obama.

One imam had a good question, something like "How far does the sacred zone extend from the WTC site? If two blocks is too close, are four blocks enough? How about eight? Is the entire borough of Manhattan off-limits?"

It's amazing how long it took you to finally get some balanced commentary on this. And from all places - Karen Hughes (although even some past statements on the issues at stake that were uttered by W. would have been a damn sight better than the current right wing-demagoguery).

This is a good question because I think there can be an easy answer. I don't live in New York so I don't know for sure, but I'd guess a 4-6 block radius would likely be appropriate.

Or, a "sacred" line that fits where plane and building parts landed. What's the radius of that?

It's a good question with good, clear answers, I think. If it's asked as a genuine question.

But I suspect it's the sort of question that provides that apologetics sort of stumping that is supposed to make the listener pause, think about the absurdity of it all, then concede that nothing is enough so everything goes.

In other words, I suspect it was intended more like a rhetorical statement than an actual question.

We didn't let Hitler build monuments in Washington, DC after he declared war on us.

We didn't let the Japanese erect torii dogs or shinto temples in Los Angeles after Dec 7, 1941.

We didn't allow the Confederacy to erect statues in Boston.

We didn't willingly allow the British to establish customs houses in the Colonies after 1775.

Uh, Skyler, the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) did not declare war on the United States. Actually, the United States did not even exist, nor was it even envisioned in the 7th century.

So I find the idea that he would have done such a thing, (which after all is the premise of your little insight) highly unlikely.

As far as the rest of your demagoguery is concerned, I note that Islam is not a nation. But you can continue characterizing it as such if that would help facilitate your nativism. It's still transparent bullshit, of course. But whatever makes you feel better.

As far as the rest of your demagoguery is concerned, I note that Islam is not a nation. But you can continue characterizing it as such if that would help facilitate your nativism. It's still transparent bullshit, of course. But whatever makes you feel better.

The dumbass, Ritmo, has discovered yet another form of bigotry!!

NATIVISM!

You steenking bigots, with your nativism!

It's the Bigots! The Bigots!

BIGOTTY BIGOTTY BIGOTS!!

Please dumbass Ritmo, discover another form of bigotry for us today!

We await anxiously your scholarly discover of other forms of bigotry. Always, bigotry is advancing and reshaping itself!

With a personality as fucked up as Screaming Thomas', he probably would shorten the lifespan of anyone within earshot of him, let alone those of close intimates. He would just naturally make life that unbearable for them.

If a christian sect had killed thousands of unsuspecting innocents in a surprise, dramatic massacre I'd bet money on almost every other christian sect standing up immediately and denouncing them and doing everything possible to disassociate that sect with their own.

How many muslims have done that? I know the Azerbaijanis have been actively fighting in the war in Iraq. I count them as good muslims.

I've yet to hear a single other imam or other muslim strongly, unequivocally condemn this jihad against us.

Standing against these attacks should be uncontroversial. That they don't seem to disagree with it tells me that they don't much mind being associated with our enemies. That means I insist on associating them with our enemies.

It's too bad our government, both republican and democrat parties, want to wish away that a religious war is being waged on us.

You're right to point out the perceived lack of sufficient condemnation, reformation or self-criticism in Islam, Skyler. And I'm glad that opposition to the mosque as given voice to more reasoned dialogues on how that religion and its worldview might or might not fit within an American framework, such as those penned by Ross Douthat, for instance.

Don't you have the offer of something as vaunted as a "job" to celebrate, Screaming Tissy Fit? I know how much angst it caused you to be eluded by such a thing previously.

I find by observing others that employment problems almost always mirror problems with maintaining relationships generally. No matter the background of the supposed "others".

I expect Screaming Tissy Fit's employment to last no more than a year at best. All he has to do is open his mouth about the minorities in New York. But it probably won't even come down to that. You can tell just by looking at his picture how easily it would be for that Buffalo Bill-look alike to creep someone out. Throw on top of that his naturally violent personality and that's the extent of any observation worth making on what he'll amount to in life.

You just gotta love liberals. When you say “but Christians are peaceful people now” and liberals say “but look at the Bible filled with fire and brimstone!”. Then you mention the Koran is filled with all the same fire & brimstone and their eyes glaze over like you just didn’t say anything. I get it.

Ritmo ...Good morning. Do you propose tricking the Moslems into thinking they are welcome to set up their own states within our states, like Mexicans are being encouraged to do? Or are we seriously intending to give up our missionary Christian sponsored nation structured under a 1789 covenant document we call the Constitution? If so, why? If we are planning to give up, then a Moslem President could reasonably to be the negotiator.

Hughes is saying there should be tolerance and mutual accomodation. I agree. The problem is that the idea of tolerance of, accomodation of other faiths, even Islamic Sufism and and Shia sects - is outside Wahhabism and other Salafi movements. The very act of tolerance is a sin in most Muslims minds. Against their religious teaching that wicked ideas and false religions must be eliminated to achieve One World under Islam and Sharia Law. At best, "People of the Book" Christians and Jews, have certain protections if they accept 2nd class citizenship as conquered people. Not so pagans and unbelievers.

This Muslim lack of tolerance is something people from Samuel Huntington to Pope Benedict have commented on as ultimately threatening our own proffered tolerance.

Tolerance must be a two-way street....and it is absent not only in many Muslim countries, but in transplanted Muslim communities in Europe, N America, Africa.

WE in the Western world and in international institutions have created a framework of laws and conventions we expect all who claim RIGHTS under will reciprocate. Muslims are resisting this.

*Refusing to grant women full status under UN Conventions on equal rights while suing western governments for their full rights to marry -say - a Canadian Somali under the same law. "You must comply, while we are commanded by a higher power, Allah..not to, when inconvenient for us!!"

*Demanding freedom from "profiling" in the West while the real life experience of a Filipino worker in KSA or American Christian in Pakistan is nothing but daily profiling during their entire time in country.

*The freedom of speech of radical clerics and websites while they insist on the control of the speech of those who "offend" them.

*In war, inistance that the West follow all Geneva Rules and commit to very restrictive Rules of Engagement while maintaining that Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim insurgents in China and Iraq are exempt from such "un-Quranic handicapping" in warfare.

-----We can only have tolerance on the table, rules and laws on the table - if all parties agree to be tolerant and follow rules----

-----Pretending we are so noble we will accept one-sided capitulation to show Muslims how noble we are and that we love certain laws and conventions so much we will exist on uneven terms with Muslims isn't Nobility..it is appeasing weakness. Do you think Muslims are so impressed with our Sacred Parchment (Constitution written by people that considered the Mohammedeans an eternal enemy) or our strident progressive Jewish Human Rights lawyers that they will mend their ways?

The N African Christians believed that they would neither fight back against Islamoid invaders nor accept 2nd class citizenship. That eventually the Muslims would see the evil in their one-sided slaughter and accept the humanity and compassion and better rules and ways of Christianity. They waved their Scared Parchment at the Muslims, said Islamoids should read the Sacred Parchment, offered their love, and willingness to turn the other cheek.

They were wiped out.

Archaeologists still come across relics of exterminated, long forgotten Christian villages and embarassing Christian carvings and artifacts when they rebuild a mosque and find it was 1st built on some burned out church..

Same story with the peaceful, tolerant Zoroastrans of Iran and the Buddhists of N India with their centuries-old beloved (and sacred) rules and laws.

Easy prey for Jihad.

No Zoroastrans are left in Central Asia. And the early jihadi hordes and through Moguls and others wiped out the Buddhists of existance in N India, Afghanistan, W China.

Islam takes a boa constrictor approach. Once a land is conquered, the coils wrap around the surviving infidels and slowly but surely, the minority is eliminated as a form of pollution. Turkey is now effectively pure. Pakistan. Egypt is working on it. The surviving Christians up in the mountains of Lebanon and Iraq - not worth conquering in the past - are now in full exodus as technology has enabled Muslims to more effectively "reach out and touch them". Only Syria and some other parts of the Levant is an exception because of ancient protections offered by revered Muslim conquerers as terms of conquest.

"former law student said...One imam had a good question, something like "How far does the sacred zone extend from the WTC site? If two blocks is too close, are four blocks enough? How about eight? Is the entire borough of Manhattan off-limits?"

How about this. It extends to any place where actual debris from the murder of 3000 Americans by these barbarians did not fall.

Why is that so hard for you to understand.

I know you get it. You are not stupid. So why do you persist in asking this foolish question. It is easy to understand.

Do you propose tricking the Moslems into thinking they are welcome to set up their own states within our states, like Mexicans are being encouraged to do?

Nope.

Or are we seriously intending to give up our missionary Christian sponsored nation structured under a 1789 covenant document we call the Constitution?

Not sure what this has to do with your question earlier regarding (I think) proposals to institute sharia. Also not sure what makes you think of the Constitution as a sectarian document. Please read Jefferson's statements to the barbary states.

If so, why? If we are planning to give up, then a Moslem President could reasonably to be the negotiator.

We are not giving up anything because we are decidedly not a sectarian nation and you know it, my friend.

The word I have from my friends in the Yemani club on Court St is that this Imam says one thing when he is talking to "outsiders" and the general public and quite another when he is talking to true believers.

Cedarford wrote:Archaeologists still come across relics of exterminated, long forgotten Christian villages and embarassing Christian carvings and artifacts when they rebuild a mosque and find it was 1st built on some burned out church..

The whole concept that it's Muslims land is belied by the fact that Islam is a much newer religion than either Christianity OR Judaism. So, who were the people in the Middle East prior to Islam? or was it a barren area? Islam came last but basically conqured all the old jewish tribes and christian and non monotheistic tribes it came across and forced them into submission (which is what Islam literally means) through war for centuries. Which is why it's hilarious that Muslims are outraged by the Crusades. The Crusades were nothing but a belated reaction to nearly two centuries of Islamic encroachment on Christian and jewish lands. Why is that never mentioned?

If you read the final chapters of the Hadiths (Muslim's accounts of the life Of the Prophet Mohammad) he was on his death bed (after being poisoned by a female prisoner) and was discusssing how Islamic armies should now go out and expand the reach of Islam, meaning to spread out, THROUGH war, a crusade (based on religion) of expansion. He dies soon after, so doesn't actually see the results, but the Crusades occured centuries after this expansion, and in that time Islam waged constant war against their neighbors, getting as far in as Spain (which was not Muslim). Of course, only the evil Christians can be accused of carrying out a crusade, because Christians are intolerant and it's derigeur to blame them for all religious intolerance.Yet why does Islam not have to answer to it's own endless warfare, and why are the lands it STOLE through force now incontestably Muslim forever?

I think the idea of talking out of both sides of one's mouth is a problem, and worth taking seriously, Trooper. By all means, we should skewer Rauf's credibility (and every other leader of his ilk) until they decide what it means to really and truly stand for something in both word and deed.

So I don't think this is really a hill you or fls or others who generally agrue in good faith should decide to fight on.

After hearing Muslims (including a family member of someone killed on the flights) voice opposition, I'm more inclined to support that view, now.

Legally, they have the right. It seems no one's seriously contesting that. But in the argument over tolerance versus bigotry or reasonableness versus what is unreasonable, I think you're right. I just want to make sure that the country does as tidy a job of cleaning this debate of ugly anti-native sentiments before having the debate. The proportion of Muslims in this country will rise and will continue to rise and culturally we have to figure out how that could be worked into a Judeo-Christian moral framework. But as for the disingenuousness of the mosque sponsor - yes, I'm willing to admit to that and to expose that and to see the mosque project objected to and opposed in light of all that.

Sorry - "nativist", not "anti-native". Not all sentiments are conscious. Attitudes can't always be severed from their arguments but there is a way to have this debate both fairly and reasonably. We can oppose the mosque without demagoguing. It's tricky - no less so because of overwhelming public sentiment against it - but it must be done or else this precedent will just create a bigger and trickier political problem later for us to deal with later.

Ritmo and fls relentlessly assert that we must tolerate the intolerant and murderous barbarians who killed 3000 of our citizens and now wish to dance on their graves.

And they can go screw, anti-Americans all.

The murderous barbarians are either dead or in caves, Pogo.

If you want to have a discussion about something as complex as civilization, then you'd best start at least pretending that you can debate this with both a fully intact brain and a soul. Or else the problem will devolve in a way that you can't predict will be in your favor.

Trooper York wrote: The word I have from my friends in the Yemani club on Court St is that this Imam says one thing when he is talking to "outsiders" and the general public and quite another when he is talking to true believers.

He is practicing taqiyya. Saying one thing to one group and then another truer thing to another group. Islam says it's ok to lie to your enemies (and infidels are your enemies) if you need to. By the way, this also seems to be a trait that many non islamic politicians,particularly liberal ones, have picked up though they don't call it taqiyya. (for example, voting for the Iraq Liberation Act under a democrat president, then denying that anyone had ever said Iraq was a threat and blaming that whole impression on Bush's lies under a republican president within the span of only a year or two. Double speak doesnt' work as well though in the age of google).

From Al- Tabari regarding the concept of Taqiyya, referencing the koran: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them."

Translation, muslims are forbidden to be friends with infidels. But if they are say a minority controlled by infidels they are allowed to lie and pretend friendship, until they gain control that is.

Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to Tabari) writes: "Whoever at any time or place fears their (infidels) evil may protect himself through outward show." he then quotes Muhammad's companion, Abu Darda, who said, "Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them"; and quotes Mohammads other companion al-Hassan who says: "Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment".

Arafat was famous for saying one thing to the media for example, then immediately going to his allies and revealing his true intent, which was the direct opposite of what he had just said to the media.

Ritmo...Empires try to expand or they are in risk of losing their diplomatic and militaristic organisational skills. Some do it peacefully as the USA has done by buying off opposition and rewarding friends with pomp and ceremonies, while cutting off relations with enemies, and assaulting enemies with force in opportune places and times. That is exactly what the Islamic Caliphate guys are doing to the western world as we speak. Treating these Caliphate guys as one more local religious denomination is an illiterate delusion. The old rule that following the money tells the tale applies here. IMO winning wars is far better than temporarily feeling good about ourselves for employing a secular puritan view point rewarded by George Soros.

And no, you don't want to "have a discussion about something as complex as civilization", you want to type as many words as you can, believing that having the longest, largest volume, most Gordian knotheaded posts makes you the 'winner' of some sort.

While I am down on Muslims enough that I think we should not let them immigrate into Europe or N America...and even then we will see a major war with Islamoids in my lifetime (not piddling little wars like Afghanistan or Iraq or piddling little American casualties in the low thousands)

Boy, oh boy... I am still sick of this "Hallowed" Ground crap!

"Lincolntf said... How far from Ground Zero? Well, for starters how about a building that wasn't hit by a chunk of the freakin' jet? This mosque is being planned for WITHIN "Ground Zero", not outside it."

Does a building hit by debris from an enemy attack become somehow "sacredized" in the process? A patch of woods in Texas made "Holy Ground" and owner prevented from using it because a jet pancaked into the ground there in 1964 killing 68 passengers and crew?

Remember that the same nutballs who half genuflect when they say "Ground Zero" and want innumerable government and goverment-derived zoning and permit restrictions imposed on owners of property are generally the same people as in the anti-Kelo movement.

The Real Lincoln, in a fact somehow eluding all the people forced to learn his speech in grade school - went to dedicate a military cemetery. THAT is what he referred to as "hallowed ground". Not anywhere a Reb or Bluecoat died on the ground. He wasn't there to extol buildings hit by a cannonball or a tree pockmarked by minnie ball as "consecrated upon impact".

Since then though, slowly but surely a Death Cult has taken shape that anywhere someone dies is now special, so special...and only the "Victim's families" may say what is done with that land.

In a real war, NYC's "Ground Zero" looks like a piddling, pathetic amount of Mourning Overkill. It was one city block. We blasted 188 city blocks of Hamburg into oblivion in 3 days of bomber raids. In real war, paying a million and a half to each "Victim Family" is absurd, even obscene. Victim Families were not about in the ruins of Moscow or Nagasaki or London saying what could or could not be built. Nor were all the people now in a huge Peanut Gallery seeking power and control by posing as "Victim Family Champions who Love the Hallowed Ground".In real war, victim families have no moral authority. Nor their "victim advocates". The idea of a Gold Star Mother or pack of relatives of the "Hero Fallen" telling FDR and Gorge Marshall what they demanded in war's conduct is laughable. Only in a piddling conflict is a gravy-sucking asshole fireman blubbering about Holy Soil or a Cindy Sheehan tolerated.

Of course, the Muslims are being assholes, and I don't care if they are assholes wrapped in the 1st Amendment. But I don't see any buyers rushing in to that area to rebuild the place with any vigor or offering to better the Muslim groups property offer. (They too are subject to playing "Mother, may I??" with all the NYC "special interest groups on behalf of Victimhood" now assembled) With claimed veto powers over any Lower Manhattan development they oppose.

That is, the usual defense of the indefensible, requiring masturbatory levels of misdirection.

Keep reducing your stance to idiotic, simple-minded sloganeering and see where that gets you.

You are an absolute idiot. You will lose this on account of your need for absolute simple-mindedness.

And no, you don't want to "have a discussion about something as complex as civilization", you want to type as many words as you can, believing that having the longest, largest volume, most Gordian knotheaded posts makes you the 'winner' of some sort.

Your ignorance and your need to reduce civilization to simple dichotomies is why this controversy will devolve - no less in your favor than in anyone else's.

Back to the concept of which is the true face of Islam, the peaceful one or the extremist one, when you deal with the concept of taqiyya it makes you wonder if the peaceful ones are only peaceful because they are under the subjugation of infidels (which is certainly the case in the US), and are simply practicing taqiyya. Now, it may very well be that because of our freedoms Islam becomes neutered here, but is the moderate face we see the true face of Islam?For Muslims it is forbidden to go against the will of Allah. You are supposed to submit unquestionably to Allah's will.If Allah, or the prophet says:"If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them."it makes you wonder again whether Muslims behaving peacefully are doing so because islam is a religion of peace or whether they are doing so because Mohammad said they should never be friendly to Islam and are simply lying to him until Islam ultimately takes control. If muslims do not practice taqiyya and ARE friendly with infidels does that not go against the teachings of Mohammad, and is the moderate Muslim therefore defying Allah?Which then is praciticing Islam correctly, the moderate Muslim who is friendly with the infidel, or the extreme muslim who hates the infidel? What does Allah say?

This is interesting. A week ago, I was the lone voice in the thread suggesting that we actually do something to prevent the 9-11 Victory Mosque.

It seemed to me as though strong suspicion of collaboration with our enemies in time of war was reason enough to deny someone's zoning permit. There's a harsh penalty for treason; they might have to build a few blocks from where they'd hoped.

Hahah.... I'm glad to see that Pasta bought into that and exposed his real fear!

Geezus. Their numbers are going to continue to grow. If you can't respect their religion and their right to practice it then you have absolved yourself of participating in the discussion on where they should build a mosque. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to point that out.

(I would say LOL here but unfortunately Pasta's slip-up is no laughing matter).

The only conclusions one should draw from Ritmo's posts are 'anti-American, leftist, statist', on perpetual repeat.

That's because you're just the kind of blinkered pundit wanna-be whose contributions will only make this all worse. You don't even understand what issues are at issue and at stake and insert your own bullshit political issues in there instead.

That, and you can't read. Keep lambasting people who on your side, dipshit. You're just jealous (as you are scared) to have it pointed out to you that you make Islamists look moderate and reasonable, by comparison.

Ritmo insulted Pogo with the folowing response:his is very simple. This is about sticking a needle in the eye of decent Americans and libtards like Ritmo defend it. He hates America and is guided by his lack of a general moral compass.

The simplest comment you can make on this is by recognizing that in a country where illiterates like Alex run the show, disaster is assured.

Ritmo, would you be willing to acknowledge that there is a face to Islam that is destructive? Perhaps you think it's more like a few hundred thousand radicals who practice wahabism who are extreme, but that the vast majority of muslims are not like that. Yet, would you acknowledge that to those extreme muslims, the same ones who flew planes into the WTC, that this mosque WOULD be viewed as a needle in the eye of the US? So then, wouldn't it be incumbent on us to find out where this imam is coming from and where his funding is coming from to at least determine why this mosque will be built.

Ritmo, would you be willing to acknowledge that there is a face to Islam that is destructive?

Yes.

Perhaps you think it's more like a few hundred thousand radicals who practice wahabism who are extreme, but that the vast majority of muslims are not like that.

That's not the point and it's not the problem.

The problem is that, like Pogo and the others here who think America is perfect, the other Muslims are used to thinking that their religion is perfect and doesn't need any improving. It is not and we should not tolerate the conceits of either.

Yet, would you acknowledge that to those extreme muslims, the same ones who flew planes into the WTC, that this mosque WOULD be viewed as a needle in the eye of the US?

This is not the point.

The fact that I've already stated my position on the mosque at least three times on this thread, and that this position went willingly missing by the raving, froth-mouthed "real Americans" says more than I need to on the whys, whens, wheres and whethers of mosque-building.

So then, wouldn't it be incumbent on us to find out where this imam is coming from and where his funding is coming from to at least determine why this mosque will be built.

Jesus Christ! I was the one to say as much.

(Read my comments to Trooper. Not only for the substance of my answer but for the tone. There's a reason why we respect each other. We actually read what the other has to say and do not blunderingly, willingly mischaracterize or misrepresent each other. That's also the approach that would lead to the right outcome with the mosque).

Ritzy said: "If you can't respect their religion and their right to practice it..."

So we're all now required to write "PBUH" after writing or uttering something about Mohammed?

Really? Even non-believers? Or we show disrespect for their religion? I guess I knew where you stood (or rather, knelt) on the "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day" issue.

You know what really shows disrespect, Ritzy? Stating that Islam is bullshit nonsense, a defense mechanism conjured from nothing by minds unable to face their own mortality. As all religions are.

Or...am I not allowed to say that now? At least about Muslims. Because they cut people's heads off, and are therefore due more respect and accommodation than are those pussy peaceful Christians and Hindi.

Anyone that types "pbuh" but isn't a practitioner of Islam is a simultaneously condescending and obsequious ninny.

Ritzy said: "After hearing Muslims (including a family member of someone killed on the flights) voice opposition, I'm more inclined to support that view, now.

I just want to make sure that the country does as tidy a job of cleaning this debate of ugly anti-native(ist) sentiments before having the debate."

In other words: You agree that they shouldn't build the mosque there, but you've received permission to hold that opinion by talking to a couple of Muslims. And your reasoning is on a much higher plane than the nativist rabble.

OK. Have your figleaf. It's good to see that you've come to your senses. Maybe next week you'll agree that they should be prevented from building it, instead of begged not to.

So we're all now required to write "PBUH" after writing or uttering something about Mohammed?

"Required"? Of all of us? Says who? What gave you that interpretation?

Anyone that types "pbuh" but isn't a practitioner of Islam is a simultaneously condescending and obsequious ninny.

But goddamn (if I can say that!) do I love getting under your skin and pointing out where your offense is completely unwarranted. And if only you could demand the respect for others that you demand to your own atheism (and yes, I respect your right to that, too. It could be a better leveler in this whole debate if you would just bother to read and think as well as you can pose a challenge. Sometimes you can and sometimes you do.).

THis also reminds me of another controversy. The DUbai ports deal. I seem to remember an awful lot of libs (along with some repubs) in an uproar about the evil Dubai Muslims taking over our port security.

Here's a relic from that time:http://shop.cafepress.com/defend-our-portsAnd here's a nice daily kos discussion about the ports deal:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/21/155744/260Now, Ritmo, and alpha Liberal, do you feel that you liberals,and in particular Chuck Shumer demagogued innocent muslims in your zeal to go after George Bush? Here's a random quote I pulled from Kos's board: "It's easy. In congressional races keep saying over and over that REPUBLICANS WANT TO SELL OUR PORTS TO TERRORISTS. They don't really care about security. All they care about is money, and this proves that this has been true all along. "

Do you think this was or was not representational of liberal views at the time? Doesn't it suggest that the company that was going to run the ports was terrorist simply because they were Muslim? Do you think Daily Kos, and people like Chuck Shumer should have to apologize to muslims and President Bush for conflating all muslims to terrorist, and for suggesting that by Bush trusting a UAE company to run our ports that he therefore didn't care for security and wants to sell ports to terrorists?What percentage of people on Kos do you think supported the idea that the UAE company was a terrorist entity simply because it was from the UAE and that Bush was trying to sell ports to terorrists? Above 20%? If I went to democratic underground and looked at the comments what would I see there?Seems to me, libs have no problems demagoging muslims when it suits them, nor calling muslims terrorists.

In other words: You agree that they shouldn't build the mosque there, but you've received permission to hold that opinion by talking to a couple of Muslims. And your reasoning is on a much higher plane than the nativist rabble.

OK. Have your figleaf. It's good to see that you've come to your senses. Maybe next week you'll agree that they should be prevented from building it, instead of begged not to.

Can you not see how much more success we'll have attained the day that the community in question comes to the forefront of said opposition? Why not hasten that day? I do not live in a perfect world but in my perfect world every group would be as self-critical as they would be critical of others.

jr, we've had 9 years to accommodate ourselves to learning how to live with Muslims in America and with Arabs (and even tyrants who govern them) in the world, and to accept the fact that we are not living under the immediate fear that 9/11 threatened us with.

If you only want to focus on how we respond to threats and not on how we learn about human elements that go beyond mere threats (like the mundane issues of zoning permits, houses of worship and dialogue between different communities of faith), such is your right. But it won't advance us as a society or ensure our preservation. At least, not in a form that's anything better than Pogo's Christian-American TM version of Islamist cant.

(Read my comments to Trooper. Not only for the substance of my answer but for the tone. There's a reason why we respect each other. We actually read what the other has to say and do not blunderingly, willingly mischaracterize or misrepresent each other. That's also the approach that would lead to the right outcome with the mosque).

You say that but you also spend the vast majority of your posts decrying the bigotry of others voicing said objections. So you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you truly believed that we need to investigate the imam and funding then it wouldn't be necessary to spend post after post denouncing the bigotry of others, since they are essentilaly arguing the same point. And you'd realize that until such a vetting took place you'd have to by default rule against building a mosque anywhere near the WTC. That's simply putting the cart before the horse.

It's like Obama saying he's for traditional marriage yet saying any pronunciation or law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman is divisive. Can't have it both ways. Well, you can, but you only look like an opportunist.YOU look like someone who really wants to prove that republicans are BIGOTS! Even though deep down you suggest that you too want to know about the funding of this particular mosque. Yet any objection made by republicans is BIGOTRY! If I had to guess your priorities I would say that the questioning of this imam and funding of this mosque is secondary to your desire to bash republicans or those you view as the enemy.

jr, we've had 9 years to accommodate ourselves to learning how to live with Muslims in America and with Arabs (and even tyrants who govern them) in the world, and to accept the fact that we are not living under the immediate fear that 9/11 threatened us with.

Only 9 years? You mean prior to 9/11 we didn't have to accomodate ourselve to learning how to live with Muslims?And that still doesn't answer the question regarding the earlier brouhaha. Do you think democrats unfairly targeted Bush as a terrorist lover who didn't care about port security and demagoged the issue? And in doing so also suggested that the company that was going to run the ports (and not the security of said ports) was a terrorist organization simply because it was Muslim?

You say that but you also spend the vast majority of your posts decrying the bigotry of others voicing said objections. So you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No I'm not. I'm saying that decrying the imam and his mosque will be much more effective when it comes out of the mouths of non-bigots.

It is neither my need nor my intention to wash every bias everyone lives with out of their heads. But on an issue like this, if you want credibility, you will examine your own biases and come to the table with as clean a conscience on your own motivations as you demand of the imam.

Or else, we can just listen to the input and opposition brought forward from other Muslims, which at this point is far from sufficient, I gather.

Only 9 years? You mean prior to 9/11 we didn't have to accomodate ourselve to learning how to live with Muslims?

It wasn't until 2001 that I think most or even many Americans seriously grappled with the idea of what it would be like to live in a multi-religious society. Why else all the cant on "Judeo-Christian" this, that or the other or the huge spike in interest on Islam post-9/11?

And that still doesn't answer the question regarding the earlier brouhaha. Do you think democrats unfairly targeted Bush as a terrorist lover who didn't care about port security and demagoged the issue?

What do you mean "unfairly" and why the politicization of this? The mosque issue can cut across partisan lines, yo. And environment matters. Yes, we are not living in 2002. The timing matters. If you disagree then why politicize this? Politics is as much about timing as any other form of entertainment is.

And in doing so also suggested that the company that was going to run the ports (and not the security of said ports) was a terrorist organization simply because it was Muslim?

Schumer and the Democrats (and decent Republicans) had every right to question the security issues relevant to the only president to govern while that many Americans died in one day from foreign attack on his watch. If you think it was politicized or demagogued, who can tell. Bush's presence in office at the time of the attack on our soil is enough reason to question everything he should have been doing, including looking into the integrity of our security as threatened by his foreign business interests.

"former law student said...One imam had a good question, something like "How far does the sacred zone extend from the WTC site? If two blocks is too close, are four blocks enough? How about eight? Is the entire borough of Manhattan off-limits?"

Trooper responds: "How about this. It extends to any place where actual debris from the murder of 3000 Americans by these barbarians did not fall.

Why is that so hard for you to understand.

I know you get it. You are not stupid. So why do you persist in asking this foolish question. It is easy to understand....."=========================Lord knows, FLS has said some stupid shit, but his question is germane:What if any part of territory hit in enemy attack is rendered Holy and Hallowed by enemy action?

My brother worked on City Island that day. At the end of it, his workplace and his car were "consecrated" as some call - by "Holy dust" from the attack.

What part of Rotterdam, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Tokyo is not Hallowed?

Is the "consecration" different by device of death?A "evildoer" attack different than a Nazi or US bomb or a trainwreck site or the tree Emilio from Sonora plowed into in Santa Cruz after drinking too mant cervezas?And how far does "hallowedness" extend?

What do you mean "unfairly" and why the politicization of this? The mosque issue can cut across partisan lines, yo. And environment matters. Yes, we are not living in 2002. The timing matters. If you disagree then why politicize this? Politics is as much about timing as any other form of entertainment is.

And in doing so also suggested that the company that was going to run the ports (and not the security of said ports) was a terrorist organization simply because it was Muslim?

Schumer and the Democrats (and decent Republicans) had every right to question the security issues relevant to the only president to govern while that many Americans died in one day from foreign attack on his watch. If you think it was politicized or demagogued, who can tell. Bush's presence in office at the time of the attack on our soil is enough reason to question everything he should have been doing, including looking into the integrity of our security as threatened by his foreign business interests.

Except libs suggested that merely because the UAE company was muslim that it was linked to terrorism, and that Bush was letting terrorists get their hands on our ports to line his pockets. I don't know how that is not playing politics with 9/11 and also suggesting that Muslims are a bogeyman to not be trusted, as well as a particulalrly vicious smear on Bush, that he cared so much about lining his pockets that he wouldn't vet this deal ahead of time. Further, this deal took place in 2006,not in 2001. So 5 years had gone by since the attack on 9/11. And the democrats had spent the following few years suggesting that Bush was hyping any and all threats (and had OBL held and was going to spring him for an october surprise). yet jumped on this deal and suggested that this company which handles ports around the entire world and which had not been linked to any terrorism, WAS linked to terrorism simply because it was Muslim. And therefore Bush didn't care about port security and was putting our ports into the hands of terrorists. You don't think that was demagoging Muslims?

Since Fen is a lying fucktard who never tells the truth anyway, there's never any reason to have an opinion in the first place, let alone clarify yours to the guy. Personally, I'm still waiting for my apology from him for claiming that I learned the phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" from the same TV show he did. I showed him the evidence that this was false, that I'd used the phrase correctly before, but no apology. You see, he's too proud to pay much mind to such trivial things as integrity. So I wouldn't expect it. It's him that shit reflects poorly on. Not me.

But I can attack his illiteracy. Especially when on a single thread, I say this:

But as for the disingenuousness of the mosque sponsor - yes, I'm willing to admit to that and to expose that and to see the mosque project objected to and opposed in light of all that.

And in the same thread he responds with this:

But this iman is a bad guy and it will come out soon because the lying scumbags of the main stream media will not be able to cover it up too much longer.

This only concerns our resident Libtards (Alpaha, Ritmo, et al) because their loss of credibilty (again) would require them to change the handles of their sockpuppets (again).

Enough said. People like the imam will win when he's up against people with even less integrity and honesty than Rauf might have, such as Fen.

Further, the role that DP world would play in handling of our ports was completely mischaracterized as they were handling our security, when in fact security in the ports would still AS ALWAYS be handled by the Coast Guard and Customs.In fact Israels largest shipping firm weighed in on the issue and said of the company BP World: "During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World... We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future." Zim Integrated Shipping Services CEO, Idan Ofer, February 22 2006.

Yet to democrats Bush was handling over security of our ports to terrorists and didnt' care because he was lining his pockets. IF you check any democratic/liberal website at the time, that was the standard talking point or worse. And they had no problem impugning Muslims as terrorists simply to bash Bush.It was so bad that Hillary came out against the deal saying "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments" even though Bill Clinton helped to broker the deal and even though DP world would actually have no control over port security.

Cedarford, is your density feigned for effect or are you really a gibbering idiot?You choose a historical period, then pretend to search for a parallel to my sentiment, you don't find one, and that somehow has something to do with my point?

If you, or any of the other useful idiots embracing "freedom of Religion" for the first time in their benighted lives, had spent any time looking into this proposed atrocity, you'd know why 70% of Americans oppose it. The imam is a deceitful thug, the message of Cordoba is violent, the site was chosen as a tribute to the attackers, not the victims, and the backers of it are the usual "hate America" suspects (on both sides of the ocean).Fortunately, the quisling politicians who have been banning crosses and tearing down Ten Commandments plaques all over the country are about to get a dose of their own medicine, except this time there's really an ailment.

I see that jr thinks that continuing to politicize this is a winning endeavor.

And in doing so also suggested that the company that was going to run the ports (and not the security of said ports) was a terrorist organization simply because it was Muslim?

What is wrong with you? Did they suggest the companies were terrorists? They said the companies were foreign, chartered in countries where terrorism against us is endemic and therefore a security concern, and therefore should be subject to the sort of scrutiny and oversight that we would direct over domestic institutions, or have their businesses given over to domestic companies or (ideally) the government. What on earth is wrong with that?

Schumer and the Democrats (and decent Republicans) had every right to question the security issues relevant to the only president to govern while that many Americans died in one day from foreign attack on his watch. If you think it was politicized or demagogued, who can tell. Bush's presence in office at the time of the attack on our soil is enough reason to question everything he should have been doing, including looking into the integrity of our security as threatened by his foreign business interests.

Except libs suggested that merely because the UAE company was muslim that it was linked to terrorism, and that Bush was letting terrorists get their hands on our ports to line his pockets. I don't know how that is not playing politics with 9/11 and also suggesting that Muslims are a bogeyman to not be trusted, as well as a particulalrly vicious smear on Bush, that he cared so much about lining his pockets that he wouldn't vet this deal ahead of time.

This is bullshit. Yemen, S.A. and other gulf states that contracted with bin Laden and sponsored his ideology before he made it more, er, "problematic", are the problem. No one would have objected to a "Muslim company" (if there were such a thing) not chartered in terrorist areas of the world. Unlike the GOP which prevented Muslims from attending political functions at the White House.

Further, this deal took place in 2006,not in 2001.

It was debated to years before that, and that's what you're bringing up.

So 5 years had gone by since the attack on 9/11.

More games. Predicated on the last falsehood.

And the democrats had spent the following few years suggesting that Bush was hyping any and all threats (and had OBL held and was going to spring him for an october surprise). yet jumped on this deal and suggested that this company which handles ports around the entire world and which had not been linked to any terrorism, WAS linked to terrorism simply because it was Muslim. And therefore Bush didn't care about port security and was putting our ports into the hands of terrorists. You don't think that was demagoging Muslims?

Hillary Clinton has even less integrity than Imam Rauf and Fen combined, so you're not going to get anywhere by me with that one.

Yes, Bush's Saudi ties are problematic to anyone not in denial about the role that Kingdom plays in fomenting terrorism and Islamist ideology and its longstanding relationships with bin Laden. Jr's willingness to outsource American security interests to the Saudis rightfully bothers any American with a shred of common sense.

They were impugning Bush's inability to appropriately consider whether or not his relationships with the Saudis were leaving him blinkered about their role in fomenting terrorism. As they were right to. Big deal. It was politics, it wasn't Muslim bashing. Unless you think that all Muslims should somehow have the right to a government as theocratic, illiberal and mealy-mouthed as the one ruled by the royal Saudi family. Not in America, they shouldn't.

Ritmo wrote:Hillary Clinton has even less integrity than Imam Rauf and Fen combined, so you're not going to get anywhere by me with that one.

Yes, Bush's Saudi ties are problematic to anyone not in denial about the role that Kingdom plays in fomenting terrorism and Islamist ideology and its longstanding relationships with bin Laden. Jr's willingness to outsource American security interests to the Saudis rightfully bothers any American with a shred of common sense.

except as already stated BP World would not handle our security at any ports. So right off the bat you are lying in your characterization. And further, Bill Clinton was working with this company to get the deal passed. And it's a reputable company that handles ports all across the world AND assisted us in ports in Dubai which we needed in the war on terror. And what do the Saudis have to do with this shipping company? I'll think you'll also find that other presidents also dealt heavily with the Saudis, of democratic persuasion no less. So every bit of your characterization I disagree with.It defies to logic to suggest that Bush was so beholden to the Saudis that he would turn over port security to a dubai shipping company without vetting the deal. And they already relied on said company to assist with our military endeavors overseas, with no incidents. And other countries around the world relied on the same company with again, no incidences. So, mischaracterizing the role this company would play as well as suggesting that they were in fact terrorists or could be linked to terrorists was in fact nothing but demagoguery and an attempt to instill fear of Muslims.

Islam already had a reformation, in the past 30 some years. That's why the hijab has become universal and the burqa quite popular. What Islam needs is a counter-reformation, where people ease off on religiosity.

Ritmo wrote:They were impugning Bush's inability to appropriately consider whether or not his relationships with the Saudis were leaving him blinkered about their role in fomenting terrorism. As they were right to. Big deal. It was politics, it wasn't Muslim bashing. Unless you think that all Muslims should somehow have the right to a government as theocratic, illiberal and mealy-mouthed as the one ruled by the royal Saudi family. Not in America, they shouldn't.

It wasn't Muslim bashing? Isn't your saudi Bashing muslim bashing? Why is that not similarly based on bigotry as is bashing an imam with potential ties to Hamas? Does hamas not engage in terrorism? And what does a shipping company hae to do with a right to a govt as a theocratic illiberal as the one ruled by the royal saudi family? Allowing Ports word to help load and unload cargo was somehow the equivalent of implementing theocracy in the US?

Would you have a problem with this mosque if it turned out that the funding was Saudi? But what about freedom of religion?

It was an attempt to expose Bush's lack of serious interest in all that goes wrong in that part of the world and with our security in general, and had nothing to do with "Muslims". Not one time did I hear any reference to generic "Muslims" in that whole thing.

By all means, keep bringing it up though as if it has much of anything to do with the Lower Manhattan mosque issue. It doesn't, of course. But I guess you go to war with the army you have, to paraphrase another one of your beyond reproach, perfect, beyond criticism, ideologically, morally and tactically invincible political heroes.

Why is that not similarly based on bigotry as is bashing an imam with potential ties to Hamas?

I don't have a problem with either. Neither does Trooper or any of the conservatives with credibility here, let alone conservatives in general. WTF is your problem, at this point?

Does hamas not engage in terrorism?

Yes. Are you schizophrenic or just arguing with yourself? BTW, am I a bigot for using schizophrenics as an example for describing what you're doing?

And what does a shipping company hae to do with a right to a govt as a theocratic illiberal as the one ruled by the royal saudi family?

If it's chartered there, it has a lot to do with it. But I guess you're even less an expert on government-business relations in the gulf than you are in the U.S.

Allowing Ports word to help load and unload cargo was somehow the equivalent of implementing theocracy in the US?

No. I mean, that was as grammatically and semantically clusterfucked a sentence as I've seen you post today. But I think that I've got both the gist of it right and the literal meaning, and you're wrong on both.

Would you have a problem with this mosque if it turned out that the funding was Saudi?

A lot more people than me would bring up that link if it were there. FNC would go as wild with that as they would with location.

Ritmo wrote:It was an attempt to expose Bush's lack of serious interest in all that goes wrong in that part of the world and with our security in general, and had nothing to do with "Muslims". Not one time did I hear any reference to generic "Muslims" in that whole thing.

It had nothing to do with Muslims except that you took a perfectly legitmate company that just happened to be a muslim one, but which already handled ports around the world without any incidents, and turned them into terrorists. The only way that Bush's action had any negative value was because he was turning ports over to Muslims. Period. And opponents then insinuated there was something sinister about this company. THe only thing sinister I heard was that they were from Dubai. Hence, muslims. Chuck Shumer et al. played the scary muslim card because they wanted to insinuate that Bush didn't care about our security and was in bed with the Saudis. And to do that they had to stoke the fears of the american populace that because this company was muslim, they would let dirty bombs get through or something.

Again I ask you, what if the mosque in question is funded by Saudi money. Is that going to mean that sudenly they can't build it? What about freedom of religion?

It had nothing to do with Muslims except that you took a perfectly legitmate company that just happened to be a muslim one, but which already handled ports around the world without any incidents, and turned them into terrorists.

And you just took and conflated "ME" with "DEMOCRATS". So when you work out that distinction between individuals and groups, maybe you might have more credibility on the whole bigotry thing.

And this idea of a "Muslim company" is still the biggest piece of bullshit I've heard. The left is less enamored of corporations in general. Unlike you, they recognize them as the potentially faceless entities that they are. The idea that shipping companies engaging in commerce have religions or are used to represent religions is the dumbest thing on this thread.

Chuck Shumer et al. played the scary muslim card because they wanted to insinuate that Bush didn't care about our security and was in bed with the Saudis.

He was and probably still is. It's a family link that goes way back. This is news to no one but you, apparently. And it's only not problematic to someone who thinks that we (should?) share as much with the Saudis in terms of ideology and worldview as you do. How many other Americans agree? How many other Muslims agree?

Again I ask you, what if the mosque in question is funded by Saudi money. Is that going to mean that sudenly they can't build it? What about freedom of religion?

What of it? Who cares? What does whether Charles Manson's funding of a church have to do with whether or not the religion worshiping in it has a right to exist? Other than absolutely nothing, I mean? Talk about apples and oranges...

i'll get behind the old no mosque movement when they clear the sacred ground of the strip club and the commercial enterprises and put up that freedom tower and fill it at $90/sq ft. yup. ground zero for the wealthy i always say.

Fen said...(3) Leftists who get the symbolism of a Trophy Mosque casting its shadow over the ruins of 9-11, but care more about sticking a finger in the eye of the partriotic Americans they hate."

Ahhh Fen....the building casts no shadown on the old WTC site. It is a few blocks north of it and the sun doesn't shine from that direction. Besides the ruins were cleared away about 8 years ago and there is a great big office building going up there where people pay rent and money is made...which doesn't stick a finger in the eye of "patriatic Americans" as much as put a thumb up their hypocritical asses...

Cool off you nitwit. take in a few lap dances at the strip club overlooking ground zero..rest that selective outrage some pardner...you sound like a fool.

He is a fool. Next thing you know he will debate the meaning of the word "shadow" with you, or proclaim the concept of a shadow to be a fictitious invention of the American left. That's about as much as he knows how to do. He's a one-trick pony.

But I forgot to mention the fact that he likes picturing Sarah Palin with testicles.

And you just took and conflated "ME" with "DEMOCRATS". So when you work out that distinction between individuals and groups, maybe you might have more credibility on the whole bigotry thing.

Considering 90% of your posts are anti conservative/republican you're either democrat or liberal. Don't see why that's all that much of a stretch.

"And this idea of a "Muslim company" is still the biggest piece of bullshit I've heard. The left is less enamored of corporations in general. Unlike you, they recognize them as the potentially faceless entities that they are. The idea that shipping companies engaging in commerce have religions or are used to represent religions is the dumbest thing on this thread.Oh come on. I would certainly grant that a company isn't a religion. Yet, the insinuation was that because the company was from a muslim country, that therefore it had terroristic ties. You KNOW that if this were a Swedish company there would not be a similar uproar.And the argument against the company was largely because of who owned them and where they were situated and not that they were a foreign company. But thanks for proving my point. Dems (and some repubs) used a company, who's only tie to terrorism was that its corporate office was in Dubai and ran with it suggesting that this corporation would faciilitate terrrorism.

He was and probably still is. It's a family link that goes way back. This is news to no one but you, apparently. And it's only not problematic to someone who thinks that we (should?) share as much with the Saudis in terms of ideology and worldview as you do. How many other Americans agree? How many other Muslims agree?What are you talking about sharing of ideology? In the interest of outreach I would assume that you would want presidents to deal with foreign leaders and build bridges with them. And for all the talk about how a bunch of the terrorsistt were from Saudi Arabia (actually they were from Yemen) the saudi royal family are also the enemies of Al Qaeda. If its your goal to get such regimes to change, it sometimes helps to find common ground in this case business that overides differences of ideology. Not to say that therefore the Saudis are perfect allies, but what is the alternative. ANd again, despite the smearing of Bush being in league with the saudis, what does that have to do with this particular company. It is a worldwide company that deals with ports in over 30 countries including Britain and some of our allies. What are their ties to the Saudis? Maybe the fact that their ties are not that close but that they still have this company handling their ports impies that perhaps this company is not all that ideological.

What of it? Who cares? What does whether Charles Manson's funding of a church have to do with whether or not the religion worshiping in it has a right to exist? Except it's already been established that noone is suggesting that they don't have a right to worship or build mosques. So it's a red herring. However, you just got through suggesting how Bush's ties to SA was somehow neferious. If the backing of this mosque turns out to be from Saudi Arabian money, would you have a problem with that? Wouldn't that be grounds to question the project or do you think building a mosque right at the heart of the WTC, which is backed by SA money,means nothing? If Saudis are linked to terrorism and saudis are building the mosque that doens't that mean that their building of said mosque might be more of a stab in the eye than is initally suggested, if not an outright recruitment tool for terrorists?

And you just took and conflated "ME" with "DEMOCRATS". So when you work out that distinction between individuals and groups, maybe you might have more credibility on the whole bigotry thing.

Considering 90% of your posts are anti conservative/republican you're either democrat or liberal. Don't see why that's all that much of a stretch.

"And this idea of a "Muslim company" is still the biggest piece of bullshit I've heard. The left is less enamored of corporations in general. Unlike you, they recognize them as the potentially faceless entities that they are. The idea that shipping companies engaging in commerce have religions or are used to represent religions is the dumbest thing on this thread.Oh come on. I would certainly grant that a company isn't a religion. Yet, the insinuation was that because the company was from a muslim country, that therefore it had terroristic ties. You KNOW that if this were a Swedish company there would not be a similar uproar.And the argument against the company was largely because of who owned them and where they were situated and not that they were a foreign company. But thanks for proving my point. Dems (and some repubs) used a company, who's only tie to terrorism was that its corporate office was in Dubai and ran with it suggesting that this corporation would faciilitate terrrorism.

He was and probably still is. It's a family link that goes way back. This is news to no one but you, apparently. And it's only not problematic to someone who thinks that we (should?) share as much with the Saudis in terms of ideology and worldview as you do. How many other Americans agree? How many other Muslims agree?What are you talking about sharing of ideology? In the interest of outreach I would assume that you would want presidents to deal with foreign leaders and build bridges with them. And for all the talk about how a bunch of the terrorsistt were from Saudi Arabia (actually they were from Yemen) the saudi royal family are also the enemies of Al Qaeda. If its your goal to get such regimes to change, it sometimes helps to find common ground in this case business that overides differences of ideology. Not to say that therefore the Saudis are perfect allies, but what is the alternative. ANd again, despite the smearing of Bush being in league with the saudis, what does that have to do with this particular company. It is a worldwide company that deals with ports in over 30 countries including Britain and some of our allies. What are their ties to the Saudis? Maybe the fact that their ties are not that close but that they still have this company handling their ports impies that perhaps this company is not all that ideological.

What of it? Who cares? What does whether Charles Manson's funding of a church have to do with whether or not the religion worshiping in it has a right to exist? Except it's already been established that noone is suggesting that they don't have a right to worship or build mosques. So it's a red herring. However, you just got through suggesting how Bush's ties to SA was somehow neferious. If the backing of this mosque turns out to be from Saudi Arabian money, would you have a problem with that? Wouldn't that be grounds to question the project or do you think building a mosque right at the heart of the WTC, which is backed by SA money,means nothing? If Saudis are linked to terrorism and saudis are building the mosque that doens't that mean that their building of said mosque might be more of a stab in the eye than is initally suggested, if not an outright recruitment tool for terrorists?

-cont-If Saudis are linked to terrorism and saudis are building the mosque that doens't that mean that their building of said mosque might be more of a stab in the eye than is initally suggested, if not an outright recruitment tool for terrorists?

Therefore, just as some might find an issue with turning over some port loading and unloading of cargo as a security threat, so too might some consider building a mosque in the heart of the WTC rubble to be a sign of intolerance, or even poke in the eye, or worse.You seem to feel justified in voting against the Dubai ports deicsion, but it is undeniable that many used that event to stoke fear of Islam because there was nothing in that companies history to suggest that they had any involvment in terrorism.So hold THEM accountable. Similarly there are many who hold that muslims have a right to pray, but have a problem building the mosque in the WTC. Why is that necessarily any more bigotry than your reluctance to turn ports over to a company from Dubai?

We had used that company before, Other countries had used that company to control IT'S ports and there had never been a WHIFF of controversy. Further, did the company not have a right to buy said ports if they were for sale? Why should they have been denied simply because they were muslim owned or their home ofice was in a muslim country?

HD House: Perhaps we can have the mosque play John Adams incredible piece on 9-11. Wouldn't that be a nice outreach? I think the developers should have a listen to the Transmigration of Souls. Might give them, and you, a hint as to why there is some discomfort with this mosque being put where they would put it if they had the money to do so.

Wahahahah......! Without whoever the only social life I have involves washing a car and buying groceries!

(I never knew that running errands constituted a social life but whatever.)

The weather was bad here, as it's been for a while all week. I didn't even have to wash my car.

Wahahahha.....! jr is talking about bigotry but I have to put it over on to someone else! Wahahahah!!!!

You know, your YouTube videos aren't half bad, actually. If only the people watching them knew what an intolerant and hateful person you only revealed yourself to be... in other parts of the internets! My! Isn't that clever.

Shouting Thomas wrote:"Jesus Christ, Ritmo, you are so fucking stupid it's surprising that you remember to breathe.

And, apparently, you also have nothing to do. I wonder why."

Well I wouldn't say Ritmo had nothing to do. He was held in detention after school and had to hang out with the nerd, the jock, the spacy chick and the redhead and they had lots of adventures. Then he walked across the football field of his school and raised his fist in the air like black power salute, as if he accomplished something great (wow, he sure showed that principal) and because that's what cool faux rebels do." I sure showed The Man how cool I am, and look at my cool trenchcoat. I am so cool Did I mention how cool I am? And hey, I know Rob Lowe (he's so dreamy) AND Demi Moore. They let me hang with them because of how cool I am!"

No threat whatsoever.But in fairness, it wasn't just the slimey Schumer Democrat types trying to politically exploit it. You had the slimey Peter King Republican types exploiting it too.

Throw in the "Hero Victim Families of 9/11" --expanding their "absolute moral authority" past demanding to control what is done with private real estate in Lower Manhattan. After showing up at 2004 Presidential rallies to say with the certainty of Noble Victimhood - that John Kerry was the Man, then Victim Families for Bush came out....then the pack of them showed up to claim the Brit and American operators of DPW could not be trusted. Nope, not in our nations ports because the Brits and Americans stevedore firms were purchased by Dubai. So the 9/11 Families thought their Absolute Moral Authority had expanded to port operator contract vetoing.The Noble Victim families had no problem with the Chicommies running West Coast, Hawaii and Mexican Ports or Panama ...but one of our best allies in the Muslim World? That was different!

[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.

[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.

[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.

[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.

_____________________________________________________________________*9:1 The absence of Basmalah from this sura is not only a profound sign from the Almighty Author of the Quran that this sura has been tampered with, but also represents an awesome miracle in its own right. See the details in Appendices 24 & 29.1114 72843

[9:7] How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.

[9:8] How can they (demand a pledge) when they never observed any rights of kinship between you and them, nor any covenant, if they ever had a chance to prevail. They pacified you with lip service, while their hearts were in opposition, and most of them are wicked.

[9:9] They traded away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. Consequently, they repulsed the people from His path. Miserable indeed is what they did!

[9:10] They never observe any rights of kinship towards any believer, nor do they uphold their covenants; these are the real transgressors.

Repentance: Cleaning the Slate

[9:11] If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), then they are your brethren in religion. We thus explain the revelations for people who know.

[9:12] If they violate their oaths after pledging to keep their covenants, and attack your religion, you may fight the leaders of paganism - you are no longer bound by your covenant with them - that they may refrain.

[9:13] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers.